PJ: Well, what are the odds that nobody will ever choose to eat chocolate ice cream, if God doesn't create anybody that would eat chocolate ice cream?

JPH: How would this be accomplished? By making it so that chocolate ice cream never existed? So that anyone who made it or tried to eat it would dissolve in smoke? I don't see how you can get around this and still have a world of free choice.

Before I answer, I will note that you don't really have an answer for my question as to how God can make sure that everyone gets all the chances to choose salvation that they need. You have said that should be possible for an omniscient/omnipotent Being. If I just answered your question by saying likewise that it should be possible for an omniscient/omnipotent Being, why is that not a sufficient answer?But to answer your question as to what methodology God might use to employ that someone will never choose to eat chocolate ice cream (if that was what He wanted to do) here is my answer. You agree that there are some people who have never eaten chocolate ice cream, no? Maybe not very many, at least in our society. But some. Maybe some are allergic. Maybe some just happened to like strawberry and never happened to try chocolate. But surely there must be some people who have never eaten chocolate ice cream, even though they had the choice to do so. Since God is omniscient, then He need only have created those people.Perhaps you might complain that if God didn't create the other people that did eat chocolate, things might be different, and some of the people that didn't eat chocolate would do so in this alternate timeline. But since you think that God can handle dealing with alternate timeline considerations while insuring that people get the chances to choose salvation, then surely he should be able to handle alternate timeline considerations to insure people don't eat chocolate ice cream. Or don't do evil.

PJ: all you seem to have done is exchanged one "Zeno's Paradox" for anotherJPH: How so? The terms have changed from quantity to quality. There is no "eternal shamING"; there is eternal shame.

To what ends? What's the point?

JPH: Indeed shame here involves lack of given privilege; you are denied the chance to have what those in heaven have. Our semantics may call that "punishment" (as when a child is denied ice cream that a sibling is given) but that is a thoroughly modern contrivance of definition, as far as I can see.

Have you had your eyes checked recently? :) Sorry for some sarcasm here, couldn't resist. Denying a privilege based upon undesirable behavior looks to my eyes as clearly punishment. That kind of punishment, as opposed to corporal punishment, seems to now be favored by child psychologists these days. I've known a fair number of people that think this "modern" punishment is too "liberal" and advocate corporal punishment. But, regardless of which philosophy is right, both are pretty obviously punishment.

PJ: Normally, when someone tries to "shame" you, the goal is similar to punishment, to make you not want to do the "shameful" act again.

JPH: Such is the modern view; shame in an honor-shame society was for the purpose of assigning value to the person who committed the act.

What's wrong with the "modern view"? You yourself have modern views, on at least some things. You consider women to be reliable witnesses--no more or less reliable than men, no? That is a "modern" view. One can't really be born and raised in today's society and not have "modern" views, even if some of your views are less "modern" than others. What I'm saying is, what is so great about an "honor-shame society"? Why does God (presumably) prefer this kind of society? Does He also think women are unreliable witnesses?

JPH: It was not "punishment" in the sense you describe. Of course such persons did wish to avoid shame, but the goal was actually more to make EVERYONE less inclined to the act, as a collective. In that view, the goal of sending some persons into eternal shame for the sake of others bypasses your objection.

You appear to have contradicted yourself because you earlier said that hell is not why people should choose salvation, and hell should not be used by preachers to encourage theism.

PJ: Well, presumably heaven is better. So, this couldn't be the best possible world.

JPH: Hmm. I don't see that we can have heaven as it is/will be without the contiguous reality of what we have had here...

Whether you or I could "see" that we could heaven without our reality here first, surely an omniscient/omnipotent God could see it, no? But for me, I see no relationship whatsoever between our reality here and heaven. After all, children that die as infants and had almost no "contiguous reality" presumably do fine in heaven.

JPH: This relates to something I have been saying on other threads here about the idea that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I consider that false; what is usually argued when that phrase is used is rather, that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanations."

Well, now we could debate what qualifies as an "extraordinary explanation". I could give as an "extraordinary explanation" for why I can fly to the store as my muscle fibers have been replaced with top-secret nanotechnology giving me superhuman strength. That is an "extraordinary explanation" but doesn't really make my claim any more believable.I suppose you might say my explanation is itself another extraordinary claim, in need of more extraordinary explanations--such as some specifications on this nanotechnology. But for sake of argument, say I produced some specifications on this nanotechnology, and lab reports etc. What I would be producing is, is *evidence*. In other words, an extraordinary claim is not validated by an extraordinary explanation until there is evidence for this explanation. Which turns the phrase back into "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

PJ: It is always possible that in the specific instance, the person is telling the truth. But that doesn't mean it was off base to have doubted.

JPH: Is it not better to simply withhold judgment instead?

There is, for all practical purposes, an infinite number of claims that could be true. It could be true that Christianity is true. It could be true that Islam is true. It could be true that Hindu is true. It could be true that Rev. Moon is the second coming of Christ. It could be true that aliens abduct people, make weird circular shapes in fields and dissect cows. It could be true the face on Mars is a real face placed by an alien race. It cold be true that the the universe was created by pink unicorns. It could be true that Elvis is alive and planning a comeback tour.The point is, I have not the ability or time to investigate every possible claim. You may say that you simply withhold judgment on those claims. But neither are you actively trying to validate those claims either, I assume. To which I say this isn't really merely "withholding judgment"--you are really assuming they are false claims until someone produces good evidence.

JPH: No amount of knowledge of power can stop a free choice. It may be able to stop the results of a free choice, but the rebellion still remains intact in the decision.

I'm fairly convinced free will is an illusion. You may say that I act like I believe free will exists. And you would be correct to say this. I do act like I believe it exists. Emotionally, I want to believe it exists and hope it exists. But logically, I don't think it does. Your decisions to write what you have written are based on your biology and your environment and past experiences. As are mine. But, for sake of argument, I will assume that free will exists. Even if it does exist, there are indeed limits. There are things I can choose to do, and there are things that I simply cannot choose to do. You might say that I can always choose to *try* anything. But there simply are things that I will never even consider trying to do based on my past events and experiences. I won't consider trying to drink gasoline because I have good reason to think that is not a good thing to do even if I've never personally trying it. The point is, what is even my sphere of things that I will even consider trying is limited.

JPH: Making sure you get the chance to make the choice is not the same as forcing the choice upon you, is it?

I agree that I haven't made my objections to this clear. How exactly does God make sure I get some specific chance that I need? If you are correct, then is not God manipulating something or someone? For example, I have a friend who is a good person and all that. But I find her way of viewing the world aggravating. For example, she talked about how there was one time when her and her husband's home business was about to go under, not able to pay the bills. And then, totally unexpected, a deadbeat customer that they had given up on ever paying came through with a $5,000 payment. So, she said that she is sure God played a hand in this. How? Did God knock on this deadbeat customer's door and go, "hey, pay up! My good servant Cathy needs the money!" How could God have arranged this payment without violating someone's free will?

JPH: Then the question I ask is: If you would not know the difference between one and the other, what difference does it make if you actually experience it, or if it is merely implanted?

As I have said, we are trapped by the sands of time, unable to experience any moment but the current moment. The past is a memory, and the future is unknown. I'm saying there is indeed *no* difference to *us*, whether what we think happened five minutes ago actually happened or not. If you and I both think that what you wrote in the previous round was written by you, then it makes no difference to us whether that is correct or not. But, the advantage from an omniscient perspective, God's perspective, is many-fold. All of the terrible things that I think happened in history, don't have to have happened in order for me to act and believe as if they happened. If for some reason God thinks it useful for me and you to think that Stalin did what he did, then He could implant the knowledge in our heads without Stalin ever having to have done what he did.Also, God then can tailor your experiences and my experiences to exactly what He wants them to be. No point in having our experiences limited by merely what actually has happened is there?

PJ: You no doubt have many times addressed the issue of who has the burden of proof of what.JPH: My take on the matter is not what you might suspect. This is because I see both sides as claimants in reality; even if not stated, for example, the person who asserts a negative view is by default standing for some other positive claim, even if they have not articulated it. The burden I see on both of us.

Actually, your take was exactly what I suspected, and already responded to... So I'll have to repeat myself. If you were to claim that George W. Bush is an alien from an alternate dimension, I might disbelieve you. You might say that I am thereby making a positive claim that he is not an alien from an alternate dimension. But it is still not reasonable to say we both have a burden to show our side. Your assertion of the claim he is from an alternate dimension is the claim that demands evidence, not the counter-claim.

PJ: In short, his basic idea is that there doesn't seem to be any rational "efficacy" of the Christian salvation methodology

JPH: I'll note this as a possible project for later. I'd suspect Doherty of using modern value judgments to decide what is or is not "efficacious"

Well, as I said earlier, what is wrong with "modern value judgments"? In fact, criticizing Doherty for using modern value judgments is like criticizing him for being born in modern times.

PJ: My answer is, as much efficacy as God chooses it to have. Its his plan.

JPH: And then what happens? God uses this plan, and fewer people choose it, and more people are condemned.

Well, God could have chosen believing "dog doo-doo is yucky" as His salvation plan. And that would have as much efficacy as God wants it to have.By the way, I recently revised my Objection 1 for Strobel's book. I don't think I added any "groundbreaking" arguments though, I just improved my presentation (I hope.)